NH GOP Primary stuff

[Teller]

There is a lot of overlap in Hunstman's views and Paul's. What specifically made you consider Huntsman over Paul? (Not trying to sell you on Paul btw, more of a curiosity to better prepare me for conversations with pthers of the same mind as you down the road)

Oh I definitely agree with that. And I certainly have no major quibbles with Paul. I like Huntsman's foreign policy experience, and success as governor (executive.) I have two good friends who live in Utah, and both of them rave about what Huntsman was able to accomplish there; especially rebuilding an educational system that was absolutely wrecked when he took over.

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh I definitely agree with that. And I certainly have no major quibbles with Paul. I like Huntsman's foreign policy experience, and success as governor (executive.) I have two good friends who live in Utah, and both of them rave about what Huntsman was able to accomplish there; especially rebuilding an educational system that was absolutely wrecked when he took over.

If Paul is on the ballot for your primary, would you consider him at all?

[dockeryfan]

So I'm listening to NPR last night, and there is an interview with Debbie Wasserman. She's saying thing like Romney won 32% of the vote four years ago, and now he only won 36% of the vote, so after many years of campaiging he only gained a little in what she was describing as essentially his home state. OK fine so far. That's 100% valid.

Then she goes on to say ... “You could really declare it a loss, because he should have blown the doors off in this state,” she pronounced. “In addition to that, the Republican turnout was off about 40 percent from the turnout in 2008, showing that this is not a field that their side is very enthusiastic about.”

So I go and look at voter turnout in the 2008 primary. 241,000 republican ballots cast.

2012? Last I looked it was like 239,000 or so.

I'm all for slamming Romney but don't friggin tell me the turnout is off 40% when it isn't.

[Cooked Crack]

So I'm listening to NPR last night, and there is an interview with Debbie Wasserman. She's saying thing like Romney won 32% of the vote four years ago, and now he only won 36% of the vote, so after many years of campaiging he only gained a little in what she was describing as essentially his home state. OK fine so far. That's 100% valid.

Then she goes on to say ... “You could really declare it a loss, because he should have blown the doors off in this state,” she pronounced. “In addition to that, the Republican turnout was off about 40 percent from the turnout in 2008, showing that this is not a field that their side is very enthusiastic about.”

So I go and look at voter turnout in the 2008 primary. 241,000 republican ballots cast.

2012? Last I looked it was like 239,000 or so.

I'm all for slamming Romney but don't friggin tell me the turnout is off 40% when it isn't.

Can't independents vote in NH primary? Maybe she's referring to those who are registered republicans. Is there any information out there?

[Teller]

If Paul is on the ballot for your primary, would you consider him at all?

Sure.

The only semi-gripe I have with him is that he's a little too isolationist (wrong word, and not meant to be derogatory) for my taste. I agree that we need to do less meddling, but I don't think it's a good idea to reduce our foreign influence the way he seems to want to.

[Wrong Direction]

Re: Romney isn't conservative enough.

I just don't get this line of thinking anymore. As governor of a liberal state, he vetoed over 200 Democrat bills. He supports fundamental tax reform (flatter, broader, eliminating most exemptions). He supports Ryan on Medicare. His national healthcare platform is pretty darn conservative. He's conservative on immigration and energy. I know the man isn't vehemently against abortion or gay marriage, but he's far from an advocate on those positions and, as President, his most likely way to influence them is through the courts, where he promises conservative judges. He has modified his positions to some extent on several issues, but he was never actually liberal on just about any of those positions, the biggest exception being amnesty, I think.

Re: Huntsman

If the race were about his record, he'd be winning. Unfortunately, many R's remember W and they remember McCain. They know that it's incredibly important to have someone who can effectively advocate his positions. Huntsman comes across as inept in this regard. He's just not a natural. His speech last night was contrived. The cameras were zoomed in so you couldn't see how small his crowd was. The victory lap he took wasn't genuine. People in the background looked like they were rolling their eyes, to me. The biggest pop he got from the crowd was when someone yelled Huntsman for President. Nothing he said. Oh, and how many Conservatives are going to pop when your new campaign theme is a song by the Beatles? I love the Beatles, but could we get a little more current and a little less hippee, please? He'll lose badly in South Carolina and will then withdrawl. If not, it'll be right after Florida. He's dead in the water.

Re: Paul

This man is succeeding in his true goal, which I don't think is to actually become president (though I'm sure he wouldn't mind). He's moderating his own party on foreign policy, I think. He certainly has on monetary policy. He speaks with conviction on spending and taxes. I loved his speech last night. Intellectual honesty travels well.

Re: Gingrich and Perry

Their negative campaign will sink them both. I'm torn between whether this campaign is a good or bad thing for Romney. Perry was ugly on Fox News last night. This will be used by Dems. On the other hand, it may not be a bad idea for Romney's campaign to get this issue out there before Obama's people do. Strategically, it may help prep the electorate and thus diminish any late-political season attacks. I think both of these guys are out after Florida unless one or the other can make it to a one-on-one contest with Romney on Super Tuesday.

Re: Santorum

It was a difficult night for him, but nobody expected the NH electorate to really play to him very well. South Carolina will be much more telling. If he loses pretty big there, he's in huge trouble. If he's close to Romney, that's great for him.

One of Santorum, Gingrich and Perry will make it past Florida, I think. That person will be the one to run head to head with Romney, with Paul continuing to get his 20%. Right now, Santorum is in the best place, I think, to show well in South Carolina and that could help him in Florida. However, he has very limited resources and organization. He really needs Newt and Perry to drop out and support him directly. Gingrich has money again, so he may be the one to last. On the other hand, I think his negatives are shooting up yet again. A comeback by him seems unlikely, to me. Perry is done. His heart isn't in it and he's not positioning himself to be #2 in South Carolina or Florida, IMO.

---------- Post added January-11th-2012 at 11:19 AM ----------

So I'm listening to NPR last night, and there is an interview with Debbie Wasserman.

This woman makes Michelle Bachman look like Heidi Klum.

[dockeryfan]

So I'm listening to NPR last night, and there is an interview with Debbie Wasserman. She's saying thing like Romney won 32% of the vote four years ago, and now he only won 36% of the vote, so after many years of campaiging he only gained a little in what she was describing as essentially his home state. OK fine so far. That's 100% valid.

Then she goes on to say ... “You could really declare it a loss, because he should have blown the doors off in this state,” she pronounced. “In addition to that, the Republican turnout was off about 40 percent from the turnout in 2008, showing that this is not a field that their side is very enthusiastic about.”

So I go and look at voter turnout in the 2008 primary. 241,000 republican ballots cast.

2012? Last I looked it was like 239,000 or so.

I'm all for slamming Romney but don't friggin tell me the turnout is off 40% when it isn't.

Can't independents vote in NH primary? Maybe she's referring to those who are registered republicans. Is there any information out there?

I was getting the 2008 numbers from here...http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008P.html

[88Comrade2000]

The 2012 race is over. Romney is nothing more than the second incarnation of Papa Bush, except he is more liberal. People keep on saying Obama is the second term of Carter; well Romney would be the second term of Papa Bush.

Romney will win the majority of the remaining primaries. Paul might win some caucuses. Frankly, the rest of the candidate other than Paul will probably drop out after SC or definitely Florida.

Huntsman will go nowhere. Perry will go nowhere. Newt has self destructed and is acting like a Dem in attacking Mitt. Santorum will go no where.

Obama will win in the fall and nothing has changed.

Even the people who voted for Mitt yesterday weren't enthused. Turnout among republicans, well conservatives will be lower than expected.

[visionary]

what did you all think of Paul's speech last night?

It was good...but could have been better I thought.

There were some really good parts when he was speaking in general terms about freedom and liberty and such, but when he got into details or started rambling I didn't really like it.

I've been wondering since last night though if there is a chance that Romney will offer Ron or Rand a high position in his administration if he gets the nomination.

(not sure how that would go over though, but I'm sure he must be thinking about what could happen at the convention)

CNN has Ron Paul on now, giving a speech in SC.

(he just said, "they can cite a poll or they can make a poll up"...ugh. That kind of conspiracy talk gets on my nerves, like complaining about the media)

[nonniey]

The 2012 race is over. Romney is nothing more than the second incarnation of Papa Bush, except he is more liberal. People keep on saying Obama is the second term of Carter; well Romney would be the second term of Papa Bush.

Romney will win the majority of the remaining primaries. Paul might win some caucuses. Frankly, the rest of the candidate other than Paul will probably drop out after SC or definitely Florida.

Huntsman will go nowhere. Perry will go nowhere. Newt has self destructed and is acting like a Dem in attacking Mitt. Santorum will go no where.

Obama will win in the fall and nothing has changed.

Even the people who voted for Mitt yesterday weren't enthused. Turnout among republicans, well conservatives will be lower than expected.

So your saying this will be a choice of Carter type President versust a HW Bush type President? If America ends up perceiving it that way, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that Obama would win? Given that Carter is generally considered to be the worst modern President, while HW is seen as a bland average President.

[SnyderShrugged]

It was good...but could have been better I thought.

There were some really good parts when he was speaking in general terms about freedom and liberty and such, but when he got into details or started rambling I didn't really like it.

I've been wondering since last night though if there is a chance that Romney will offer Ron or Rand a high position in his administration if he gets the nomination.

(not sure how that would go over though, but I'm sure he must be thinking about what could happen at the convention)

CNN has Ron Paul on now, giving a speech in SC.

(he just said, "they can cite a poll or they can make a poll up"...ugh. That kind of conspiracy talk gets on my nerves, like complaining about the media)

LOL, I actually think that the instructive approach that he took was refreshing as compared to the standard "we the people", politician schtick. It gave him a chance to explain his beliefs and not be limited to 30 second sound bites.

I think he was probably referring to all the media manufactured "surges" that have appeared in the race thus far, with CNN's huntsman surge pushing as the example.

[@DCGoldPants]

I get why people want to brand others as the next whoever. It happens so much in sports that doing it now doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Obama isn't the next Carter. Even if people don't want to admit it. Romney isn't the next H.W. Bush.

I remember during Bush II's Admin, people would say history will look back favorably on his time. But I think its his father who will get that credit.

If we are forced to make comparisons, then Romney clearly is Rutherford B. Hayes and Obama is Andrew Johnson.

[visionary]

LOL, I actually think that the instructive approach that he took was refreshing as compared to the standard "we the people", politician schtick. It gave him a chance to explain his beliefs and not be limited to 30 second sound bites.

I think he was probably referring to all the media manufactured "surges" that have appeared in the race thus far, with CNN's huntsman surge pushing as the example.

That's a fair point about Huntsman, but most of the surges have been genuine if short lived.

I think some may really like the details that Paul is not afraid to provide, but I'm fairly sure most people get turned off by them in a political speech.

Some details are ok, but I think but most people just don't care about that sort of stuff enough for it to make much difference.

And Ron Paul isn't going to be able to convince them in a speech, he's more likely to bore them into tuning out.

Also he did have a couple of instances where he was near incoherent for a bit.

On the whole though it was not a bad speech. Just somewhat unpolished and dwarfed by Romney's.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's a fair point about Huntsman, but most of the surges have been genuine if short lived.

I think some may really like the details that Paul is not afraid to provide, but I'm fairly sure most people get turned off by them in a political speech.

Some details are ok, but I think but most people just don't care about that sort of stuff enough for it to make much difference.

And Ron Paul isn't going to be able to convince them in a speech, he's more likely to bore them into tuning out.

Also he did have a couple of instances where he was near incoherent for a bit.

On the whole though it was not a bad speech. Just somewhat unpolished and dwarfed by Romney's.

There definitely was a big difference between the two. To me (and to many that I have spoken to) Romney came off clean, polished, telepromptored and very "establishment".

Paul came off as unpolished, too quick, heartfelt, genuine, and more like he was having a conversation with you than giving a speech.

[JimboDaMan]

LOL, I actually think that the instructive approach that he took was refreshing as compared to the standard "we the people", politician schtick. It gave him a chance to explain his beliefs and not be limited to 30 second sound bites.

I get why he did that, and I get why his supporters enjoy when he does that. I just think they're deaf to the sound of tens of millions of eyes rolling among those who are not supporters. Part of the problem: I'm calling them his "supporters", but really they feel more like "followers".

---------- Post added January-11th-2012 at 01:29 PM ----------

There definitely was a big difference between the two. To me (and to many that I have spoken to) Romney came off clean, polished, telepromptored and very "establishment".

Paul came off as unpolished, too quick, heartfelt, genuine, and more like he was having a conversation with you than giving a speech.

Agreed. Esp. think is unwise for Romney to pursue the "politics of envy" avenue. As Sharpeton said later on, kind of incredously, "You think this is about jealousy?" Might be a winner with those already sold, but I don't see it winning converts.

Paul definitely came off more like he was in his own living room.

[SnyderShrugged]

I get why he did that, and I get why his supporters enjoy when he does that. I just think they're deaf to the sound of tens of millions of eyes rolling among those who are not supporters. Part of the problem: I'm calling them his "supporters", but really they feel more like "followers".

What makes you think that 10's of millions of eyes rolled during that speech? The callers into cspan were HUGELY supportive and loved it, and many of them were not RP "Followers" or supporters before hearing it.

[JimboDaMan]

What makes you think that 10's of millions of eyes rolled during that speech? The callers into cspan were HUGELY supportive and loved it, and many of them were not RP "Followers" or supporters before hearing it.

I could hear them.

[SnyderShrugged]

I could hear them.

Funny, they all must have been near you because I mainly heard applause

[88Comrade2000]

So your saying this will be a choice of Carter type President versust a HW Bush type President? If America ends up perceiving it that way, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that Obama would win? Given that Carter is generally considered to be the worst modern President, while HW is seen as a bland average President.

Despite the obvious lack of enthusiasm for Obama by his own supporters: he will win the black vote, he will win the Hispanic vote, the blue collar dems- union vote will come back to him after Dems pound what the governors did to public unions will happen to private unions also, the liberal single female vote will go to him also. That will get him to his 40-45%. The rest he will be able to get when compared to Romney. Independents will probably stay home as they don't have a real choice his time. Romney will not excite the base and their hatred of Obama won't be enough for him to bring them all out to vote for him. Also, it will not shock me to see Ron Paul run as a third party candidate if the Republicans don't alter their platform to suit his views or Donald Trump run as a third party. A third candidate all but assures Obama reelection. Hell, it wouldn't me if Ron Paul go into the race his finishes second and Romney finishes third. I also think that if Obama is trailing badly close to the convention; you will see either Hillary Clinton as veep or a Hispanic female as veep.

[Hubbs]

So I'm listening to NPR last night, and there is an interview with Debbie Wasserman. She's saying thing like Romney won 32% of the vote four years ago, and now he only won 36% of the vote, so after many years of campaiging he only gained a little in what she was describing as essentially his home state. OK fine so far. That's 100% valid.

Then she goes on to say ... “You could really declare it a loss, because he should have blown the doors off in this state,” she pronounced. “In addition to that, the Republican turnout was off about 40 percent from the turnout in 2008, showing that this is not a field that their side is very enthusiastic about.”

So I go and look at voter turnout in the 2008 primary. 241,000 republican ballots cast.

2012? Last I looked it was like 239,000 or so.

I'm all for slamming Romney but don't friggin tell me the turnout is off 40% when it isn't.

I can't stand her. Absolutely can't stand her. She's a talking point robot of the highest degree.

[Ken]

That's a fair point about Huntsman, but most of the surges have been genuine if short lived.

I think some may really like the details that Paul is not afraid to provide, but I'm fairly sure most people get turned off by them in a political speech.

Some details are ok, but I think but most people just don't care about that sort of stuff enough for it to make much difference.

And Ron Paul isn't going to be able to convince them in a speech, he's more likely to bore them into tuning out.

Also he did have a couple of instances where he was near incoherent for a bit.

On the whole though it was not a bad speech. Just somewhat unpolished and dwarfed by Romney's.

Well,

Maybe to simpleton's Paul's speaches with substance would be 'boring'. I'm sure they prefer the lies and bs rhetoric of slimeball Mitt though.

If that's what America truly wants, then we will get what we deserve...

[visionary]

Well,

Maybe to simpleton's Paul's speaches with substance would be 'boring'. I'm sure they prefer the lies and bs rhetoric of slimeball Mitt though.

If that's what America truly wants, then we will get what we deserve...

I think maybe you could have phrased that a little better....

[Jumbo]

I think maybe you could have phrased that a little better....

Doubtful. He's Ken.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I think maybe you could have phrased that a little better....

H. L. Mencken said it best, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

[SnyderShrugged]

while I realize that its rather meaningless, I couldnt help but chuckle at the results of the other primary in NH that was held this week.

Guess who placed second for the Dems? LOL

http://www.democratsforronpaul.com/2012/01/12/ron-paul-2-in-nh-democratic-primary/

Ron Paul #2 in NH … Democratic Primary

Listen up GOP, no other candidate you run will pull Dems and Indy;s into your party.